Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than
addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating
that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for
example, by stating that people who believe in UFOs are crazy or stupid.
A common form of this fallacy is also frequently present in the arguments of conspiracy theorists (who also rely heavily on adhoc reasoning). For example, they may argue that the government must be lying because they are corrupt.
It should be noted that simply calling someone a name or otherwise making an ad hominem attack is not in itself a logical
fallacy. It is only a fallacy to claim that an argument is wrong because of a negative attribute of someone making the argument.
(i.e. John is a jerk. is not a fallacy. John is wrong because he is a jerk. is a logical fallacy.)
The term poisoning the well also refers to a form of ad hominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument of another
by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or that they are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong or
unpopular. A common form of this also has its own name Godwins Law or the reductio ad Hitlerum. This refers to an attempt
at poisoning the well by drawing an analogy between anothers position and Hitler or the Nazis.

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we dont know that it isnt true. Defenders of
extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore
possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
UFO proponents are probably the most frequent violators of this fallacy. Almost all UFO eyewitness evidence is ultimately an
argument from ignorance lights or objects sighted in the sky are unknown, and therefore they are alien spacecraft.
Intelligent design is almost entirely based upon this fallacy. The core argument for intelligent design is that there are biological
structures that have not been fully explained by evolution, therefore a powerful intelligent designer must have created them. This
type of argument is often referred to as a god of the gaps argument.
In order to make a positive claim, however, positive evidence for the specific claim must be presented. The absence of another
explanation only means that we do not know it doesnt mean we get to make up a specific explanation.

Argument from authority

The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore
A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the
individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess
authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy see
above.)
In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an
individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some
legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong speaking
from authority does not make a claim true.
This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by
airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained
not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilots authority as an eye witness.
There are many subtypes of the argument from authority, essentially referring to the implied source of authority. A
common example is the argument ad populum a belief must be true because it is popular, essentially assuming the
authority of the masses. Another example is the argument from antiquity a belief has been around for a long time and
therefore must be true.

False Continuum
The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the
extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same
thing. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it
to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or
conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.
According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

Example
Fred can never grow a beard
Fred is clean-shaven now. If a person has no beard, one more day of growth will not cause them to suddenly have a
beard. Therefore Fred can never grow a beard.

False Dichotomy
Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have
been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of
variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather
the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.
Is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be
the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the
other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just
two mutually exclusive ones. (e.g. you don't want tea, therefore you must want coffee.)

Genetic Fallacy
The term genetic here does not refer to DNA and genes, but to history (and therefore a connection through the concept of
inheritance). This fallacy assumes that somethings current utility is dictated by and constrained by its historical utility.
The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than
on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or
thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or
rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Example of its form:

Socrates says that he is mortal.

Socrates is a pagan - only Christians are trustworthy.
Therefore Socrates is immortal.

Note that there are cases where this type of argument may not be fallacious. For example, there are some cases in which the
origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim, such as a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true
(provided it is in her area of expertise)

No True Scotsman
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by
asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or
criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition.
Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the
group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y
becomes a requirement of membership in X.
Example:
If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might
respond, Well, then, hes no true Scotsman. In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the
definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ians
definition of the word, Scotsman.

Non-Sequitur
Non sequitur is a Latin phrase that means that which does not follow. It means that the conclusion reached does not follow
from the premise(s). Often examples of non sequitur arguments are hilariously disconnected, but those encountered in the wild
can be subtle and may not be easily uncovered. The reason that such arguments are fallacious in logic should be fairly obvious.
In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
Examples of non sequitur arguments:

All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates likes women.
I sit at a table to read, and the elements are organized in a table, therefore reading is elementary.
The world was created a few thousand years ago in six days. How do I know? Look! A moose and peaches!
I have a crab hat. Your argument is invalid.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two
events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to after this, therefore because of this). The term refers to
a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event. This is often
encountered with health claims: I was sick, I took a treatment, and now I am better, therefore the treatment made me better. Of
course, its possible the illness resolved on its own.
X happened before Y
Therefore, X caused Y

Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from
another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a
series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to
why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following
form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must
inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases
in which there are a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope
1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a
semester!"
2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a
few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of
literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

Reductio ad absurdum
A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically
to an absurd conclusion. Arguments which use universals such as, always, never, everyone, nobody, etc., are prone
to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in
essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
Logical Form:
Assume P is true.
From this assumption, deduce that Q is true.
Also deduce that Q is false.
Thus, P implies both Q and not Q (a contradiction, which is necessarily false).
Therefore, P itself must be false.
Example #1:
I am going into surgery tomorrow so please pray for me. If enough people pray for me, God will protect me from
harm and see to it that I have a successful surgery and speedy recovery.

Tautology
Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction.

Tautology is a way to express something by repeating or saying it in a different way. This can be used for
emphasis, to convey something important, or to add literary beauty to a text. However, many times its use
is inadvertent and is just a needless repetition. In logic, it is a statement that consists of two facts, one
which will be true in any instance.

Examples:

Either it will rain tomorrow or it wont rain.

Bill will win the election or he will not win the election.
She is brave or she is not brave.
I will get in trouble or not get in trouble.
Mary will turn the light on or turn it off.

Moving the Goalpost

Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been
satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponents argument.
A method of denial that involves arbitrarily moving the criteria for proof or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence
currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed back further keeping it out of
range of the new evidence. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start moving the goalpost impossibly out of range
for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.

Logical Form:
Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example:
Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like right and wrong would be meaningless,
since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms right and wrong are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that
changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term heavy does not have an objective standard, yet we
have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective
foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldnt, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all
possible ways. A feather may not be seen as heavy to anyone, but that doesnt mean its lightness is still not
relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement
based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as
indicated by Kens move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an
impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or
abandon the argument.

Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. My evidence may be invalid,
but so is yours.
1. Person A makes claim X about Person B.
2. Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A.
3. Therefore, X is is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite.

Examples:
Politician 1: Is it true that you were at a brothel last night?
Politician 2: You should know better than I do, I was with you last night!
Bob: "Smoking and alcoholism are well-known risk factors for cancer."
Alice: "But you yourself smoke and drink a lot! You're wrong!"

Argument from Personal Incredulity

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true.

1. P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the
possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false

Begging the Question

To assume a conclusion in ones question. This is similar to circular reasoning, when an argument is trying to slip in a

conclusion into a premise or question but it is not the same as circular reasoning because the question being begged
can be a separate point. Whereas with circular reasoning the premise and conclusion are the same.

Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
A implies B and A is only valid because B is assumed

Claim X assumes X is true.

Therefore, claim X is true.
Example #1:
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal
activity.
Explanation: The claim, paranormal activity is real is supported by the premise, I have experienced what
can only be described as paranormal activity. The premise presupposes, or assumes, that the claim, paranormal
activity is real is already true.

Straw Man
The intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated
audiences to make it appear that the opponent'sarguments are more easily defeated than they are.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Example :
A: Sunny days are good.
B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

Hasty generalization
Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much
more in line with the typical or average situation.
Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is a very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S.

Example:
My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine. Therefore,
smoking really cant be that bad for you.
Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health risks of
smoking by the case study of one man.

False Analogy
When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that
is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.

X is like Y.
Y has property P.
Therefore, X has property P.
(but X really is not too much like Y)

Equivocation
Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
I want to have myself a merry little Christmas, but I refuse to do as the song suggests and make the yuletide gay. I
don't think sexual preference should have anything to do with enjoying the holiday.
Explanation: The word, gay is meant to be in light spirits, joyful, and merry, not in the homosexual sense.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam
An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam or the Galileo argument)[1][2] is a fallacy in which
someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a
specific kind of appeal to emotion.

Examples:

"You must have graded my exam incorrectly. I studied very hard for weeks specifically because I knew my career
depended on getting a good grade. If you give me a failing grade I'm ruined!"

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, look at this miserable man, in a wheelchair, unable to use his legs. Could such a
man really be guilty of embezzlement?"

"Lord Byron shouldn't win the poetry competition: he doesn't need the prize money."

Argumentum ad Populum
Is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the
basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true.

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

Everyone's doing it.

In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.

Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.

Millions of people agree with my viewpoint, therefore it must be true.

The majority of this country voted for this President, therefore this president can't be wrong

My family or tribe holds this as a truth, and everyone who disagrees is simply wrong.